Talk:Canadian House of Commons passes Quebecois nation motion

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think this is a good article but a little inaccessable to non-Canadians. What I'm asking is what does this term 'a nation within' mean? My knowledge of Canadian society is limited so I am guessing here but are the First Nations/Aboriginal peoples are also considered 'nations within'? Just a suggestion that might bring an idea of what this means (beyond political posturing). --Sgt Howie 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


French interwiki to update:

  • from [[fr:Les Québécois reconnus comme une nation au sein du Canada]]
  • to [[fr:Adoption de la motion reconnaissant les Québécois comme une nation au sein d'un Canada uni]]

Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 13:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done FellowWiki Newsie 15:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You have protected the page to prevent alterations, on the presumption that the stub is correct, as it stands. WRONG! Which one of you wrote this: "[the people of Quebec]" right after the word "QUEBECOIS"?

Do you realize that you are indulging in LEGAL INTERPRETATION? HOW do you know what Harper meant by the word QUEBECOIS? If you knew any Quebec history at all, you would know that the FRENCH CANADIANS, who are the majority here, and to whom the Legislature permanently belongs by means of the lawful Confederation of 1867, DO NOT CONSIDER NON-FRENCH-CANADIANS as members of the French Canadian "PEOPLE".

The "QUEBECOIS" reference is a political scam to attempt to sweep all residents on Quebec soil into the same "secession" bag, in order to match up with the precedent for "international state recognition" set by the BADINTER ARBITRATION COMMISSION at the time the major powers decided to destroy Yugoslavia by "international state recognition". They conducted their illegal and violent recognition not on the basis of ETHNICITY (the original basis of the federal state of Yugoslavia), but on the basis of BORDERS, so that all within a given territory composing Yugoslavia, were suddenly swept into that seceding state by FORCE. The Serb population, which over 80-90 years had spread out from their own Serb state into other adjoining areas of Yugoslavia, saw THEIR ETHNICITY attacked and facing "national" destruction, being split up among other "seceding" states.

The precedent still stands. The HARPER "QUEBECOIS" "NATION" motion sweeps ALL ethnicities into the ludicrous concept of a QUEBECOIS ETHNICITY embracing over 200 foreign races that have been mass immigrated into Quebec in the past 30-40 years.... with intent by the federal government in fact to ERADICATE the French Canadians, and their constitutional legislature; same as they are using mass immigration to eradicate the other Founding Canadians (English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Dutch, etc.) in order to DESTROY NATIONALISM.

The word "QUEBECOIS" is a trick to equate the territory, the borders of Quebec, with "nation", in order to use the BADINTER STANDARDS later to have Quebec "internationally recognized" AS A NATION, in order to DISMANTLE CANADA for North American Union.

Please do NOT make LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS of words, when you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you.

Kindly UNFREEZE the page and remove those words in brackets, and DO NOT pretend to define what the word "QUEBECOIS" "means" in Harper's Machiavellian "nation" motion. In other words, the ludicrous word "QUEBECOIS" (implying 200+ ethnicities are one "people") is a trick to indirectly refer to BORDERS and TERRITORY, the basis on which "recognition" will take place according to the Badinter Standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 22:34, 26 March 2014

You are mistaken about why the page is protected. You are also mistaken in calling it a stub. This is Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Changes to archived articles are limited to (1) trivial copyedits (such as spelling corrections that don't change the meaning), and (2) correction notices. You'd have to make a rational case for either. --Pi zero (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history of the article is publicly available, btw, if you want to work out who wrote which parts of it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]